Appeal No. 95-0057
Application 07/775,114
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to each of the three rejections, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of the prior art, has
pointed out the perceived differences between the prior art and
the claimed invention, and has reasonably indicated how and why
the prior art would have been modified and/or combined to arrive
at the claimed invention. The examiner has, therefore, at least
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon appellants to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut the
examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants have
presented several arguments in response to the examiner’s
rejections. Therefore, we consider obviousness based upon the
totality of the evidence and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments.
I. The rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5
based upon Kemppi, D’Avello or Harris in
view of Fuwa.
The examiner relies on each of Kemppi, D’Avello and
Harris as teaching a remote card reader for use with a cellular
telephone. According to the examiner, each of these references
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007